Someone "Insulted Islam" Again!
Gosh! Is there an end to this craziness? A British teacher faces six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine if convicted of blasphemy. Her crime? Naming a teddy bear Muhammad. Yes, there is good reason to feel "insulted" and "offended". Not at teddy bear being named Muhammad but at the so-called "leaders" of Ummah who have yet to learn stop behaving like children!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
She's got the looks......
So we males are still fascinated by looks and wary of brains. Marilyn Monroe still proves to be a better turn-on than Marie Curie. So says Maureen Dowd:
November 14, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?
MAUREEN DOWD
In 2005, a year after Ellie Grossman, a doctor, met Ray Fisman, a professor, on a blind date, she was talking to her grandmother about her guy.
“Never let a man think you’re smarter,” her grandmother advised. “Men don’t like that.”
Ray and Ellie “had a good laugh, thinking times had changed,” he recalled. The pair went on to marry — after she proposed.
But now, he says, “it seems like the students at Columbia University should pay heed to Grandma Lil’s advice.”
Mr. Fisman is a 36-year-old Columbia economics professor who conducted a two-year study, published last year, on dating. With two psychologists and another economist, he ran a speed-dating experiment at a local bar near the Columbia campus.
The results surprised him and made him a little sad because he found that even in the 21st century, many men are still straitjacketed in stereotypes.
“I guess I had hoped that they had evolved beyond this,” he said in a phone interview. “It’s like that ‘Sex and the City’ episode where Miranda went speed-dating. When she says she’s a lawyer, guys lose interest. Then she tells them she’s a flight attendant and that plays into their deepest fantasies.”
As he recapped the experiment in Slate last week:
“We found that men did put significantly more weight on their assessment of a partner’s beauty, when choosing, than women did. We also found that women got more dates when they won high marks for looks.”
He continued: “By contrast, intelligence ratings were more than twice as important in predicting women’s choices as men’s. It isn’t exactly that smarts were a complete turnoff for men: They preferred women whom they rated as smarter — but only up to a point ... It turns out that men avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition — a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date.
“When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better. So, yes, the stereotypes appear to be true: We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.”
Hillary Clinton, who is trying to crash through the Oval glass ceiling, may hope that we’re evolving into a kingdom of queen bees and their male slaves. But stories have been popping up that suggest that evolution is moving forward in a circuitous route, with lots of speed bumps.
Perhaps smart women can take hope — as long as they’re built like Marilyn Monroe. Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Pittsburgh have released a zany study on the zaftig, positing that men are drawn to hourglass figures not only because they look alluring, but because hips plumped up by omega-3 fatty acids could mean smarter women bearing smarter kids.
Yet Alex Williams recently reported in The Times that the new income superiority of many young women in big cities is causing them to encounter “forms of hostility they weren’t prepared to meet,” leaving them “trying to figure out how to balance pride in their accomplishments against their perceived need to bolster the egos of the men they date.”
Professional women in their 20s are growing deft at subterfuges to protect the egos of dates who make less money, the story said, such as not leaving their shopping bags around and not mentioning their business achievements. Or they simply date older men who might not be as threatened.
Even though men and women in surveys often say that a salary gender gap doesn’t matter, in the real world it can play out differently — either because the man has subterranean resentment he can’t shed, or the woman equates it with a lack of male drive.
Evolution is lurching ahead unevenly at the office, as well. The Times’s Lisa Belkin wrote this month about the confusing array of signals for executive women that can leave them hamstrung.
Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace, found that women who behave in ways that cleave to gender stereotypes — focusing on collegiality and relationships — are seen as less competent. But if they act too macho, they are seen as “too tough” and “unfeminine.”
Ms. Belkin said that another study shows that men — and female secretaries — are not considered less competent if they dress sexy at work, but female executives are.
Women still tend to be timid about negotiating salaries and raises. Men ask for more money at eight times the rate of women.
Victoria Brescoll, a Yale researcher, found that men who get angry at the office gain stature and clout, even as women who get angry lose stature because they are seen as out of control.
That may be why Obama is trying to get “fired up,” in the words of his fall slogan, while Hillary calmly observes that she can take the heat and stereotypically adds that she likes the kitchen.
November 14, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?
MAUREEN DOWD
In 2005, a year after Ellie Grossman, a doctor, met Ray Fisman, a professor, on a blind date, she was talking to her grandmother about her guy.
“Never let a man think you’re smarter,” her grandmother advised. “Men don’t like that.”
Ray and Ellie “had a good laugh, thinking times had changed,” he recalled. The pair went on to marry — after she proposed.
But now, he says, “it seems like the students at Columbia University should pay heed to Grandma Lil’s advice.”
Mr. Fisman is a 36-year-old Columbia economics professor who conducted a two-year study, published last year, on dating. With two psychologists and another economist, he ran a speed-dating experiment at a local bar near the Columbia campus.
The results surprised him and made him a little sad because he found that even in the 21st century, many men are still straitjacketed in stereotypes.
“I guess I had hoped that they had evolved beyond this,” he said in a phone interview. “It’s like that ‘Sex and the City’ episode where Miranda went speed-dating. When she says she’s a lawyer, guys lose interest. Then she tells them she’s a flight attendant and that plays into their deepest fantasies.”
As he recapped the experiment in Slate last week:
“We found that men did put significantly more weight on their assessment of a partner’s beauty, when choosing, than women did. We also found that women got more dates when they won high marks for looks.”
He continued: “By contrast, intelligence ratings were more than twice as important in predicting women’s choices as men’s. It isn’t exactly that smarts were a complete turnoff for men: They preferred women whom they rated as smarter — but only up to a point ... It turns out that men avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition — a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date.
“When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better. So, yes, the stereotypes appear to be true: We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.”
Hillary Clinton, who is trying to crash through the Oval glass ceiling, may hope that we’re evolving into a kingdom of queen bees and their male slaves. But stories have been popping up that suggest that evolution is moving forward in a circuitous route, with lots of speed bumps.
Perhaps smart women can take hope — as long as they’re built like Marilyn Monroe. Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Pittsburgh have released a zany study on the zaftig, positing that men are drawn to hourglass figures not only because they look alluring, but because hips plumped up by omega-3 fatty acids could mean smarter women bearing smarter kids.
Yet Alex Williams recently reported in The Times that the new income superiority of many young women in big cities is causing them to encounter “forms of hostility they weren’t prepared to meet,” leaving them “trying to figure out how to balance pride in their accomplishments against their perceived need to bolster the egos of the men they date.”
Professional women in their 20s are growing deft at subterfuges to protect the egos of dates who make less money, the story said, such as not leaving their shopping bags around and not mentioning their business achievements. Or they simply date older men who might not be as threatened.
Even though men and women in surveys often say that a salary gender gap doesn’t matter, in the real world it can play out differently — either because the man has subterranean resentment he can’t shed, or the woman equates it with a lack of male drive.
Evolution is lurching ahead unevenly at the office, as well. The Times’s Lisa Belkin wrote this month about the confusing array of signals for executive women that can leave them hamstrung.
Catalyst, an organization that studies women in the workplace, found that women who behave in ways that cleave to gender stereotypes — focusing on collegiality and relationships — are seen as less competent. But if they act too macho, they are seen as “too tough” and “unfeminine.”
Ms. Belkin said that another study shows that men — and female secretaries — are not considered less competent if they dress sexy at work, but female executives are.
Women still tend to be timid about negotiating salaries and raises. Men ask for more money at eight times the rate of women.
Victoria Brescoll, a Yale researcher, found that men who get angry at the office gain stature and clout, even as women who get angry lose stature because they are seen as out of control.
That may be why Obama is trying to get “fired up,” in the words of his fall slogan, while Hillary calmly observes that she can take the heat and stereotypically adds that she likes the kitchen.
Ignoring and Repeating History
As Santayana remarked, "Those who forget their history are destined to repeat it". The "orphan" nation provides a living testimony to this statement.
A clue to the answer may lie in Professor Aziz’s remarks, particularly his brilliant social analogy. What distinguishes orphans in a community? The comparison implies not just a lack of means and privilege, which though an obvious handicap is seldom a permanent disability, but also insecurity and lack of breeding. Communities may pity orphans for the former but they have also learnt to be wary of them on account of the latter. History, myths and literature (particularly children’s literature) show that gods and emperors have always treated orphans and outcasts (orphans by choice?) with suspicion. Their total ignorance of rules makes these ‘aliens’ impervious to the reluctance and inhibitions that are often the reformer’s undoing but sometimes prove his saving grace. Their insecurity, leading in extreme cases to paranoia, makes them ruthless.
Having realised that behind almost every horrible crime against humanity (from genocide to apartheid), there lies an incurable sense of insecurity (the-entire-world-is-against-us syndrome), the world has seen the wisdom of Saadi’s advice — fear the man who is (unreasonably and irreconcilably) afraid of you — and learnt to shun the orphan more than the bully.
This, even though respectable senators dismiss it, is the unfortunate connection. When we turn our back on our national history, our neighbours in the global village are perplexed. When we refuse to acknowledge the facts and logic of world history, they panic. They wonder, and one cannot blame them, whether we are plain silly or suicidal maniacs. They fear an apocalypse.
As Santayana remarked, "Those who forget their history are destined to repeat it". The "orphan" nation provides a living testimony to this statement.
A clue to the answer may lie in Professor Aziz’s remarks, particularly his brilliant social analogy. What distinguishes orphans in a community? The comparison implies not just a lack of means and privilege, which though an obvious handicap is seldom a permanent disability, but also insecurity and lack of breeding. Communities may pity orphans for the former but they have also learnt to be wary of them on account of the latter. History, myths and literature (particularly children’s literature) show that gods and emperors have always treated orphans and outcasts (orphans by choice?) with suspicion. Their total ignorance of rules makes these ‘aliens’ impervious to the reluctance and inhibitions that are often the reformer’s undoing but sometimes prove his saving grace. Their insecurity, leading in extreme cases to paranoia, makes them ruthless.
Having realised that behind almost every horrible crime against humanity (from genocide to apartheid), there lies an incurable sense of insecurity (the-entire-world-is-against-us syndrome), the world has seen the wisdom of Saadi’s advice — fear the man who is (unreasonably and irreconcilably) afraid of you — and learnt to shun the orphan more than the bully.
This, even though respectable senators dismiss it, is the unfortunate connection. When we turn our back on our national history, our neighbours in the global village are perplexed. When we refuse to acknowledge the facts and logic of world history, they panic. They wonder, and one cannot blame them, whether we are plain silly or suicidal maniacs. They fear an apocalypse.
Friday, November 09, 2007
The case of Musharraf and the drunk uncle
A scrutiny of Great Commando's eloquence:
A scrutiny of Great Commando's eloquence:
And when he said, "Extremists have gone very extreme," it suddenly occurred to me why his speech pattern seemed so familiar. He was that uncle that you get stranded with at a family gathering when everybody else has gone to sleep but there is still some whisky left in the bottle. And uncle thinks he is about to say something very profound -- if you would only pour him one last one.
Consider this; in the middle of his speech when everyone was silently urging him to get to the point, losing the thread of his diatribe about how judicial activism was responsible for the rise of jihadis in Pakistan, he abruptly said, "I have imposed emergency," then looked into the camera, waved his hand in a dismissive gesture and said, "You must have seen it on TV."
He forgot to mention that he had pulled the plug on all television channels except the State-run television. It might sound like old-school dictator talk, but just imagine if somebody took away your television and then told you, 'Oh, did you see that thing on TV?'
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Siege of Mecca
Ziauddin Sardar reviews Yaroslav Trofimiv's book "The Siege of Mecca" that provides an investigative account into the siege of Kaaba in 1979. I was not aware how incompetent Saudi intelligence and security forces turned out to be in this whole episode.
Ziauddin Sardar reviews Yaroslav Trofimiv's book "The Siege of Mecca" that provides an investigative account into the siege of Kaaba in 1979. I was not aware how incompetent Saudi intelligence and security forces turned out to be in this whole episode.
The Saudi authorities were slow to realise what had happened. It was only when the first batch of police and security officials were gunned down that the state grudgingly moved into action. The insurgents had occupied prime sites on the nine minarets of the mosque and were able to pick off anyone who approached the site. A number of assaults, involving police, the National Guard and the army, which Trofimov describes in some detail, ended in bloodbaths.
The authorities faced a number of problems. They were totally incompetent. The three security forces had different commands, did not trust each other, and were unable to communicate with each other as they had different radio systems. And, most astonishingly, they had no architectural plans of the mosque.
Indeed, there were only two institutions in the whole of the kingdom that had detailed plans of the Sacred Mosque - the Bin Laden Construction Company, which had built various extensions to the mosque but which was unwilling or unable to pass the maps on to the authorities, and my own research centre. For the previous five years, we had measured, calibrated and photographed almost every inch of the mosque. At considerable risk to himself, our director, the dissident architect Sami Angawi, delivered the plans to the front-line troops.
One of the mosque's gates was identified as the entry point for a new offensive. It was blown up with a huge charge. Paratroopers backed by armoured personnel carriers (APCs) stormed in, only to walk into an ambush. Another bloodbath ensued. It seemed that the insurgents had an answer to whatever the army threw at them. Even blowing up the minarets of the mosque did not help much. Eventually, using heavy artillery and scores of APCs, the army and the National Guard fought their way, step by bloody step, to the centre of the compound, where the Kaaba is located. Qahtani, the self-proclaimed Mahdi, who fought with exceptional daring, was killed.
Yet this was only a partial victory. The rebels retreated from the mosque's surface to its underground section. Known as the Qaboo, this is a labyrinth of rooms and alleyways, a mini-city where the insurgents had stashed the bulk of their weapons. Once again, the army's attempt to enter the Qaboo proved futile and deadly.
After a week of horrendously savage combat, it was clear that the Saudis needed help. They turned to their foremost allies: the United States and the CIA. A horde of CIA operatives was quickly converted to Islam so that they could enter the Holy City to assess the battlefield for themselves. They recommended chemical warfare. Potent tear gas was pumped into the Qaboo through its various entrances, but the exercise turned into a fiasco.
Hardened rebel fighters were able to shield themselves with mattresses, cardboard and cloth and prevented the gas from spreading into narrow underground corridors. Their water-soaked headdresses protected their breathing. The gas had a natural tendency to rise, so it came up to the compound of the mosque - where the Saudi soldiers were ill-prepared to use gas masks. Their generous facial hair prevented the masks from sealing on the skin: the gas seeped through their beards and knocked out a large contingent. Then it made its way to the surrounding area, and most of Mecca had to be evacuated.
My own account of what happened next differs from Trofimov's. The grapevine in Jeddah, I remember, suggested that the Qaboo had been flooded on the recommendation of the CIA. The rebels who escaped drowning were forced to the surface and captured. But Trofimov provides us with another story. The Saudis, he suggests, called in the French Foreign Legion. Paris despatched Lieutenant Paul Barril, a mercenary commando with expertise in such situations, on a "provost mission" to the kingdom.
Barril recommended another dose of gas - indeed, a whole tonne of CS gas, enough to poison a small city. However, the entire French stock of CS gas came to only 300kg so the operation was limited to this amount. This time, the gas was to be used with a particular cunning. Countless holes were bored from the surface of the compound down into the Qaboo, and the gas was pumped in through these holes. At the same time, battalions of the army entered the Qaboo from two points, in a pincer movement. They succeeded in overpowering the insurgents and capturing Juhayman.
Emeregency +
Ejaz Haider continues with his satire of "Great Leap Forward" (aka "emergency plus") by His Enlightened Moderation.
Ejaz Haider continues with his satire of "Great Leap Forward" (aka "emergency plus") by His Enlightened Moderation.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A Tale of Two "Moderates"
Here are two "moderate" presidents bent on begetting anything but moderation in their countries. Compariosn between Messers Musharaff and Mubarak (and their other counterparts in Muslim world) couldn't be sharper . Mona Eltahway puts it brilliantly
You have brilliantly used the Islamist boogeyman. That is a trick your fellow Muslim dictators also have perfected, presenting themselves as the only sane choice in countries beset by Islamist lunatics. Mubarak might point to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas can point to Hamas, but who can beat having Osama bin Laden allegedly hiding somewhere in his country? Or those Taliban and Al Qaeda foot soldiers crisscrossing the Afghanistan-Pakistan border?
You claim that your emergency law is aimed at fighting these suicidal maniacs and their Pakistani supporters. But Pakistanis know the real target of your clampdown is the country's Supreme Court and its brave judges who have steadfastly opposed you.
That's another thing you share with your fellow Muslim dictators: an allergy to an independent judiciary, which in many Muslim countries constitutes the most potent secular opposition. Mubarak recognized last year the danger of judges who dared demand independence. He had them beaten and arrested and had their supporters jailed, answering any questions about how "serious" he was about reform and democracy.
Here are two "moderate" presidents bent on begetting anything but moderation in their countries. Compariosn between Messers Musharaff and Mubarak (and their other counterparts in Muslim world) couldn't be sharper . Mona Eltahway puts it brilliantly
You have brilliantly used the Islamist boogeyman. That is a trick your fellow Muslim dictators also have perfected, presenting themselves as the only sane choice in countries beset by Islamist lunatics. Mubarak might point to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas can point to Hamas, but who can beat having Osama bin Laden allegedly hiding somewhere in his country? Or those Taliban and Al Qaeda foot soldiers crisscrossing the Afghanistan-Pakistan border?
You claim that your emergency law is aimed at fighting these suicidal maniacs and their Pakistani supporters. But Pakistanis know the real target of your clampdown is the country's Supreme Court and its brave judges who have steadfastly opposed you.
That's another thing you share with your fellow Muslim dictators: an allergy to an independent judiciary, which in many Muslim countries constitutes the most potent secular opposition. Mubarak recognized last year the danger of judges who dared demand independence. He had them beaten and arrested and had their supporters jailed, answering any questions about how "serious" he was about reform and democracy.
Pakistan’s General Anarchy
Muhammad Hanif's article in today's New York Times:
For those who have never had to live under his regime, the general/president can come across as a rakish, daredevil figure. His résumé is impressive: here’s a man who can manage the frontline of the Western world’s war on terrorism, get rid of prime ministers at will, force his political opponents into exile and still find the time to write an autobiography. But ask the lawyers, judges, arts teachers and students behind bars about him, and one will find out he is your garden-variety dictator who, after having spent eight years in power, is asking why can’t he continue for another eight.
General Musharraf’s bond with his troops is not just ideological. Under his command Pakistan’s armed forces have become a hugely profitable empire. It’s the nation’s pre-eminent real estate dealer, it dominates the breakfast-cereal market, it runs banks and bakeries. Only last month Pakistan’s Navy, in an audacious move, set up a barbecue business on the banks of the Indus River about 400 miles away from the Arabian Sea it’s supposed to protect.
It’s a happy marriage between God and greed.
Muhammad Hanif's article in today's New York Times:
For those who have never had to live under his regime, the general/president can come across as a rakish, daredevil figure. His résumé is impressive: here’s a man who can manage the frontline of the Western world’s war on terrorism, get rid of prime ministers at will, force his political opponents into exile and still find the time to write an autobiography. But ask the lawyers, judges, arts teachers and students behind bars about him, and one will find out he is your garden-variety dictator who, after having spent eight years in power, is asking why can’t he continue for another eight.
General Musharraf’s bond with his troops is not just ideological. Under his command Pakistan’s armed forces have become a hugely profitable empire. It’s the nation’s pre-eminent real estate dealer, it dominates the breakfast-cereal market, it runs banks and bakeries. Only last month Pakistan’s Navy, in an audacious move, set up a barbecue business on the banks of the Indus River about 400 miles away from the Arabian Sea it’s supposed to protect.
It’s a happy marriage between God and greed.
Big Brother has taken his gloves off ...
Laughable or lamentable, you decide, - but definitely readable it is. If the "emergency plus" was aimed at fighting terrorists (as Great Leader proclaimed), it has missed the bull's eye way apart. Big Brother has taken his gloves off but to whom he wanna shows "who is the boss".. As Asma Jehangir said in her message:
... the President (who has lost his marbles) said that he had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires.
Laughable or lamentable, you decide, - but definitely readable it is. If the "emergency plus" was aimed at fighting terrorists (as Great Leader proclaimed), it has missed the bull's eye way apart. Big Brother has taken his gloves off but to whom he wanna shows "who is the boss".. As Asma Jehangir said in her message:
... the President (who has lost his marbles) said that he had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Our "Defining Moment"
It's not the first (and probably not the last) "defining moment" since its birth this crisis-ridden nation is currently passing though. Three days after the imposition of emergency, all private news channels remain off air - and hundreds of lawyers, political workers are under arrest or "in-house detention". All for one reason that C-in-C (Creep-in-Chief) is unwilling to go on leave.
It's not the first (and probably not the last) "defining moment" since its birth this crisis-ridden nation is currently passing though. Three days after the imposition of emergency, all private news channels remain off air - and hundreds of lawyers, political workers are under arrest or "in-house detention". All for one reason that C-in-C (Creep-in-Chief) is unwilling to go on leave.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Pathetic state of apathy
Pervez Hoodbhoy and Rasul Bakhsh Rais has pointed towards the sickening apathy of Pakistani civil society against the rising tide of religious extremism and terrorism. Ayesha Siddiqa provides her diagnosis of this sorry state of the nation:
As long as our honour is secure and we are not being insulted, why get up and fight. Unfortunately, today this is the mindset of most people. Everybody wants to secure his or her own space without bothering to stand up for the other.
I am reminded of the story of a king who ordered all his subjects to bring a pail of milk and empty it into the pond in front of the castle before dawn. Next morning when the king woke up, he found the pond filled with water and no milk. Everyone thought that others would bring milk so a bucket of water would suffice. This is pure realpolitik and pragmatism. People are encouraged not to fight for norms, values and principles but to save their interests. Power is the name of the game and people are meant to respect that.
How, then, can we expect a society, which could not snub two extremely arrogant agents of the state for insulting an educationist, to stand up against terrorists that kill innocent security personnel? This is not to justify the society’s complacency but an effort to understand the sickening apathy. Both the individual and the society he lives in do not have the strength to stand up to often violent humiliation at the hands of all sorts of rogue elements.
Pervez Hoodbhoy and Rasul Bakhsh Rais has pointed towards the sickening apathy of Pakistani civil society against the rising tide of religious extremism and terrorism. Ayesha Siddiqa provides her diagnosis of this sorry state of the nation:
As long as our honour is secure and we are not being insulted, why get up and fight. Unfortunately, today this is the mindset of most people. Everybody wants to secure his or her own space without bothering to stand up for the other.
I am reminded of the story of a king who ordered all his subjects to bring a pail of milk and empty it into the pond in front of the castle before dawn. Next morning when the king woke up, he found the pond filled with water and no milk. Everyone thought that others would bring milk so a bucket of water would suffice. This is pure realpolitik and pragmatism. People are encouraged not to fight for norms, values and principles but to save their interests. Power is the name of the game and people are meant to respect that.
How, then, can we expect a society, which could not snub two extremely arrogant agents of the state for insulting an educationist, to stand up against terrorists that kill innocent security personnel? This is not to justify the society’s complacency but an effort to understand the sickening apathy. Both the individual and the society he lives in do not have the strength to stand up to often violent humiliation at the hands of all sorts of rogue elements.
Flawed and failed
Razi Azmi has re-appeared on the pages of Daily Times after a long time, though not on a pleasnat moment and and not for a pleasant reason:
The famous French writer Victor Hugo once said that history repeats itself, first time as tragedy, then as farce. One is tempted to see all the Pakistani governments from Ayub to Musharraf, indeed from Nazimuddin to Musharraf, in this light. Only it is hard to tell which phase constitutes tragedy and which farce.
Meanwhile, Daily Times is still harping on it's "transitionist" (aka pro-Mush) tone, blaming anyone but Great Leader for imposition of "emergency".
Razi Azmi has re-appeared on the pages of Daily Times after a long time, though not on a pleasnat moment and and not for a pleasant reason:
The famous French writer Victor Hugo once said that history repeats itself, first time as tragedy, then as farce. One is tempted to see all the Pakistani governments from Ayub to Musharraf, indeed from Nazimuddin to Musharraf, in this light. Only it is hard to tell which phase constitutes tragedy and which farce.
Meanwhile, Daily Times is still harping on it's "transitionist" (aka pro-Mush) tone, blaming anyone but Great Leader for imposition of "emergency".
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Desperate Measures: Emergency rule declared in Pakistan
Finally an end to rumors circling around for past few days! Commando resorts to desperate measures to stick to hold on to power and declares emergency rule today. PTV's newscaster referred to him as "Chief of Army Staff"rather than "Sadr-e-mamlikat" while breaking the news of emergency. All private news channels including BBC and CNN have gone off air (Thank God, they did not terminate internet connection - as yet at least). A drowning man catching at a straw! Or a stooge flaunting to his pay masters "who is the boss" in the "most dangerous country of the world" (State Department unambiguously opposed the idea of emergency or martial law in Pakistan).
Meanwhile, I am faced with another personal emergency. Travel agent told me that I won't be able to leave for Dublin tomorrow. Instead, I have a chance to get ticket on 9th and he will give further details on Monday. Sigh!
Finally an end to rumors circling around for past few days! Commando resorts to desperate measures to stick to hold on to power and declares emergency rule today. PTV's newscaster referred to him as "Chief of Army Staff"rather than "Sadr-e-mamlikat" while breaking the news of emergency. All private news channels including BBC and CNN have gone off air (Thank God, they did not terminate internet connection - as yet at least). A drowning man catching at a straw! Or a stooge flaunting to his pay masters "who is the boss" in the "most dangerous country of the world" (State Department unambiguously opposed the idea of emergency or martial law in Pakistan).
Meanwhile, I am faced with another personal emergency. Travel agent told me that I won't be able to leave for Dublin tomorrow. Instead, I have a chance to get ticket on 9th and he will give further details on Monday. Sigh!
Rape Conundrum
It was kinda shocking to know that in UK, less than 5% of reported rapes lead to conviction, not to mention that majority of sexual assaults remain unreported. Joanna Burke suggests a re-examination of masculinity as one of the possible remedies to this problem:
A politics of masculinity that focuses upon a man's body as a site of pleasure (for him and others), as opposed to an instrument of oppression and pain, demands a renewed focus on male comportment, imaginary, and agency. People discover sex: they learn its performance. Indeed, phallic masculinity represents a turning away from a complex model of pleasure, draining it (in the words of feminist Catherine Waldby) of "erotic potential in favour of its localisation in the penis, taken to be the phallus' little representative". Adopting a "good sex" model will enable men to love and be loved in more fulfilling ways.
It was kinda shocking to know that in UK, less than 5% of reported rapes lead to conviction, not to mention that majority of sexual assaults remain unreported. Joanna Burke suggests a re-examination of masculinity as one of the possible remedies to this problem:
A politics of masculinity that focuses upon a man's body as a site of pleasure (for him and others), as opposed to an instrument of oppression and pain, demands a renewed focus on male comportment, imaginary, and agency. People discover sex: they learn its performance. Indeed, phallic masculinity represents a turning away from a complex model of pleasure, draining it (in the words of feminist Catherine Waldby) of "erotic potential in favour of its localisation in the penis, taken to be the phallus' little representative". Adopting a "good sex" model will enable men to love and be loved in more fulfilling ways.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy
Here is a a review of John Mueller's article "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat? The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy".
Here is a a review of John Mueller's article "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat? The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)